1. Field of the Invention
The invention was developed to apply substances such as Armor-All.TM. to such things as car tires when detailing the cars. Although the invention is not limited to this application, it is its primary focus.
2. Problems in the Art
The conventional way to apply such things as Armor-All.TM. is to either squirt it out of a standard manually pumped spray bottle (for example a Windex.TM. bottle) or to pour some of the fluid on a cloth or rag and swipe it on the surface to which it is to be applied. Even with the spray bottle, a cloth or rag is needed to wipe and smooth it out over the surface. There are times when the liquid needs to be penetrate somewhat into the surface of application, and mere wiping is insufficient.
A third method involves use of a sponge-type applicator such as liquid shoe polish or the like. It still usually requires some wiping or working with cloth. Foam applicators are sometimes used, but they deteriorate quite rapidly due to the rough surfaces of tires, and the lettering found on many tires.
The problems with these techniques is that they generally require the two-step process of dispensing the fluid from its container and then wiping it on or working it into the surface. They also create a subtle but significant problem of having the substance on rags or applicators which in turn then causes the user's hands to come into contact with the substance. It also results in spillage of the substance.
The problem with the above is that if the user's hands come in contact or the rags or towels come in contact with the liquid, it is difficult to clean and can drip or be transferred to floors and make them slippery. It can also be damaging to the user's skin. Some of these substances are dangerous if exposure to eyes or skin occur, or if inhaled through the nose or ingested into the lungs.
Further, the above application methods tend to utilize a lot of the substance (more than is needed for the surface) and therefore a significant amount of liquid and thus a significant amount of cost is involved in the application of the substance.
There are a variety of different types of vinyl and rubber protectorant fluids. Examples are Armor-All.TM. Protectorant of Armor-All.TM. Products Corporation of Aliso Viejo, Calif.; ReTire from Zep Products, of Smyrna, Ga.; and Ultra Shine Tire Protectorant from Grace-Lee Products, of Minneapolis, Minn. Most of them are packaged in relatively small hand-held sized plastic bottles. Some of the containers simply have screw off caps. The substance is poured onto a rag or other applicator. The substance is then wiped and/or worked onto a targeted surface, such as, for example, a car tire or other vinyl or rubber parts of an automobile. Using this process, it is very hard to regulate the amount of fluid that is dispensed out of the bottle that should be commenced with the needs of the targeted surface. In other words, the user just estimates how much to pour onto the applicator. Because most applicators are absorbent, any excess is either inefficiently placed on the target surface, or retained in the absorbent applicator. However, in both cases many times too much of the fluid is dispensed.
Furthermore, the steps of pouring fluid onto an applicator, then moving the applicator to a surface, and then wiping the applicator on the surface all involve possible spillage. Also, the applicator either has a limited life span, or must be cleaned from time to time. If a rag, this means it must be washed, for example in a washing machine. The types of liquid protectorants discussed, are not necessarily environmentally friendly. Therefore, if the substance is able to be removed from the cloth or towel, it then enters the water and is placed into the water system of the municipality. Otherwise, the applicator must be washed under a hose or other facilities and again the substance would enter the municipal water system or fall or run off to the ground and also could enter ground water. Such substances are also potentially hazardous because if spilled on the floor, they can create slippery areas. Workers or customers would be exposed to this risk. The substances may produce environmentally hazardous substances when decomposing.
Other conventional types of containers for such fluids may incorporate in the hand-held bottle a spray nozzle with a manually pumped delivery system. Dispension of the fluid is therefore arguably easier, as is control over dispension of the fluid. However, the spray is generally not fine in nature. The amount of control is also not precise. This results in either an inefficient amount of the substance being applied to the surface, or spillage, splattering, dripping, or mis-direction of the spray; again resulting in waste of the fluid as well as creating possible negative environmental consequences. Moreover, even using the spray dispensers requires the second step of then wiping the substance over the targeted surface. Similar problems regarding use of such an applicator therefore occur.
It should also be mentioned that most hand-held sized containers hold a relatively small amount of the fluid. This is especially inefficient for businesses that use a relatively large amount of the fluid over the course of a day. It requires a change-over of containers frequently as well as the uneconomic of paying for a large number of containers. Thus, the convenience of having a small hand-sized container, including the maneuverability of the same, is countervailed by the small amount of fluid that it can contain as well as the problems with imprecise amounts of fluid used and spillage.